I am very reluctant, as a rule, to criticize writings by students in the UC Irvine campus paper (New University) with which I disagree. The reason is simple; I teach at UCI, and the writers are, after all, students. Since this week's editorial is in the name of the editorial staff, I will make an exception here.
This week's issue has a lead editorial entitled, "Justice for Trayvon Martin".
http://www.newuniversity.org/2012/04/opinion/justice-for-trayvon-martin/
"It’s scary to see how a man who murdered a young African-American boy in cold blood because of his own prejudices can go free, even though the masses are calling for his arrest and evidence supports this."
I could go through the entire article and point out the implications (like the reference to the Red State) and the examples of slanted writing, but it is the above quote that I want to focus on.
In this sentence, the writer(s) has convicted George Zimmerman of cold-blooded murder acting out of racial bias. It also states that the evidence supports this.
None of that has been proven. First of all, from the audio we have heard, as well as witness statements, I think we can assume that the shot was fired in the middle of a fight. At this point, I think it is a stretch to think that Zimmerman simply stood face to face with Martin, pulled his weapon and fired. That would be cold-blooded murder.
As I have said before, this case will rise or fall on the following:
1 What happened at the moment Zimmerman and Martin came face to face?
2 Who initiated the physical struggle?
3 Under what exact circumstances did Zimmerman draw his weapon?
4 Under what circumstances did Zimmerman fire his weapon?
The fact that Zimmerman may have called 9-11 dozens of times in the past is not the deciding issue. The fact that he was told by the 9-11 operator not to follow Martin is not the deciding issue. Even if he used bad judgment in trying to follow Martin after being told by the 9-11 operator not to do so, the deciding issues are numbers 1-4 above.
Zimmerman has his version of events. There has been disagreement over the extent of his injuries. There is no clear audio that shows that Zimmerman called Martin a name. Some say he referred to Martin as a
"f------ coon". Some think he said it was "f------- cold." The Zimmerman family has reportedly said, the word was "f-------punk". I can't tell. Unless he used the first word in referring to Martin, why are they calling Zimmerman a racist? Don't forget how NBC edited that 9-11 audio to make it sound as if Zimmerman volunteered the fact that Martin "looked black", when in reality, he was answering the 9-11 operator's question.
I am not trying to acquit Zimmerman here because I don't know the answers to the above 4 questions myself. The point of the matter is that the New University editorial again causes me to wonder what the Hell they teach these kids in journalism class. It is not the role of the media to proclaim someone guilty who is yet to be charged. The fact that this case is being played out with a bounty on Zimmerman's head, courtesy of the New Black Panther Party, makes such language even more irresponsible.
Let the police and prosecutors do their job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Wouldn't it be ironic if there is a video of the event and it shows Zimmerman to be the victim?
In this day and age I would be very surprised if there were no video.
Good for you.
Unfortunately, you face an uphill battle against a mob mentaility which seems unfamiliar with fundamental concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process".
Thank you, Anonymous.
If nothing else, it's fun to poke the left in the eye even if you are the only one doing it.
We do a have a law school at UCI run by liberal guy Erwin Chemerinsky. God only knows what they are saying about this case in those classes.
What the masses are calling for doesn't mean diddly squat in a court of law.
There is no evidence which conclusively establishes cold blooded murder.
There is considerably likelihood that this was a case of negligent homicide: acting out of an honest but unreasonable fear that deadly force was justified.
Those who exercise their right to bear arms are subject to prosecution if they fire the arms rashly, even if they thought at the time they were doing the right thing. An apology won't bring Trayvon Martin back to life.
The author of the UCI article needs remedial education in several areas of civics and law.
What the masses are calling for doesn't mean diddly squat in a court of law.
Want to make a bet on that? Imagine if Zimmerman is not indited, not convicted? How fast do you think riots will break out all over the US?
Oh yes, the courts, the juries know. Convict Zimmerman regardless if he is innocent or not.
Yeah, riot avoidance may have been one of the reasons for the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, no?? Along with, of course, a few other factors.
What a cynic you are, Findalis. Is there no principle worth standing up for? Are you so committed to doom and gloom that you would rather decree it is inevitable than fight the good fight?
O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury that required no intimidation. Whether they were skewed by personal desire, or simply didn't see enough evidence in the prosecution case, I don't know. I've met elderly white ladies in West Virginia who believed him to be innocent.
Mumia abu Jamal summarized the Simpson case very well. He wrote, I don't know if O.J. is innocent, I don't know if he is guilty, but I do know that if he had not had $4 million to spend on a legal defense, he would be serving life in prison right now.
Siarlys,
Let me summarizethe Abu Jamal case for you. He was guilty.
You do know that if OJ Simpson was just another poor black man he never would have had a chance with Nicole and she and Ron Goldman would be alive to this day.
It was because he had money and fame that he got away with murder.
And as for him being part of the black community: When the trial was done, and the community had supported him, guess where he went and to whom he turned to.
Rich, white people.
You're off topic Gary, and coming from the blog administrator, that sets a very poor example. You were talking about whether Zimmerman would be convicted, elwood mentions O.J, I quote Mumia about O.J., and you want to stick in your opinion that O.J. was guilty -- a matter you know less about than you know about Zimmerman.
I will set a good example by refusing to go further off topic. I will not rehash at this time the voluminous evidence of Mumia's innocence.
Siarlys,
Who is off-topic? I did not say that OJ was guilty (though he was). I said Mumia was guilty. Pls don't bore me with the arguments that he was innocent. I already went through that a few years ago with one of his chief defenders.
Siarlys--do not confuse the legal concepts of "innocent" and "not guilty". Different animals.
I won't bore you Gary. I would publicly debate you in front of an undecided audience any day. But it would serve no purpose here.
On topic would be about whether Zimmerman is guilty, or rather, whether it is appropriate to even state that he is or isn't.
O.J. might perhaps already be off topic.
But it might be a tangentially relevant analogy.
Mumia's comment on OJ is as on-topic as anything about OJ.
Whether Mumia is guilty, or not, is irrelevant to whether he accurately characterized OJ's trial.
Siarlys,
I could care less what Mumia says about OJ or anything else. As for OJ, with the jury he had, I could have gotten him off.
That you could care less is a description of your state of mind, but hardly of substantive relevance to the discussion, albeit we began with your post. Mumia's description could be right or wrong, whether or not you care. It could be a relevant analysis, whether or not he shot Officer Faulkner, and whether or not he was justified in doing so. Ask an English professor to explain the difference between "mood" and "argument."
Siarlys,
All I know is your arguments put me in a bad mood.
Post a Comment